↓ Skip to main content

Laser Endodontics

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Endodontic Journal, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 132)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Laser Endodontics
Published in
Australian Endodontic Journal, August 2013
DOI 10.1111/aej.12039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manfred Lagemann, Roy George, Lei Chai, Laurence J. Walsh

Abstract

Laser enhancement of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid with cetrimide (EDTAC) has previously been shown to increase removal of smear layer, for middle-infrared erbium lasers. This study evaluated the efficiency of EDTAC activation using a near-infrared-pulsed 940 nm laser delivered by plain fibre tips into 15% EDTAC or 3% hydrogen peroxide. Root canals in 4 groups of 10 single roots were prepared using rotary files, with controls for the presence and absence of smear layer. After laser treatment (80 mJ pulse(-1) , 50 Hz, 6 cycles of 10 s), roots were split and the apical, middle and coronal thirds of the canal were examined using scanning electron microscopy, with the area of dentine tubules determined by a validated quantitative image analysis method. Lasing EDTAC considerably improved smear layer removal, while lasing into peroxide gave minimal smear layer removal. The laser protocol used was more effective for smear layer removal than the 'gold standard' protocol using EDTAC with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). In addition, lasers may also provide a benefit through photothermal disinfection. Further research is needed to optimise irrigant activation protocols using near-infrared diode lasers of other wavelengths.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 68%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2015.
All research outputs
#15,497,948
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Australian Endodontic Journal
#41
of 132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,844
of 202,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Endodontic Journal
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them